Lynch is a beast, I expect him to have a great season as a top 10 back. At the time when he was on the trading block, I personally dont think we should've went after him and obv ted didnt either. I trust in ted and I trust in james starks that he can have a good season. Its pointless to argue about should or shouldnt we have got lynch at this moment, we just have to move on with what he have right now. All we really need right now is an average running game, but when Rodgers starts packing on some years, I hope we can go from an average run game to a good run game to protect him more.

Yes, he was very good last season. Certainly his best season as a pro. It was also his contract year. hmmm. Coincidence?

He has been busted for pot. He was the target of a drive by (reportedly a case of mistaken identity). He is also had a restraining order on him, sexual assault charges, as well as the previously mentioned hit and run incident.

I'm actually leaning in a different direction as I think about it now. Here is my prediction: We have seen the best of Lynch. Its all down hill from here. I'm thinking he cashed in and he is taking it easy from here on out. I'm glad we didn't sign him.

With an article in the Press Gazette this weekend highlighting the fact the Packers may be relying upon Alex Green a lot this season, I knew some Marshawn Lynch trolls would come out. Sure enough, the only comment on the PFT post suggested the Pack should have gotten Lynch when they could have. Even in the forums here, the occasional Lynch troll will appear.

From a production standpoint, both sides to the argument have a point. The Pack won SB XLV with James Starks being productive enough to get us some yards and keep the defense honest on play-action passes. He never fumbled and was reliable. Of course, last season, the running game was dormant and having a beast in Lynch probably would have helped in the playoffs.

But, what never gets mentioned and, to me, really solidifies the reason why TT was smart not to get Lynch is that getting Lynch was not the right play for the long-term well-being of the team. Lynch just signed a 4-year, $31M deal, with $17M guaranteed. The Packers have Rodgers, Jennings, Clay, Raji all deserving of new deals in the next few years. If the Packers had to pay Lynch that kind of money, it is doubtful the Pack could also keep those four key players, and potentially others (maybe JMike for instance). And if the Packers just had Lynch for the two-year rental, that was going to cost them the 3rd round pick they used to select Alex Green (Seattle paid a 4th rd., but to better that trade, the Pack would have had to give up the 3rd). If Green can produce as a 3rd-down type back and at the price of a 3rd rd. selection, TT absolutely made the right move in not getting Lynch. Plus, if Starks can stay healthy, I really like what he brings to the team - but that's another thread.

Keep in mind that most running backs are on their way out around 30. Green has yet to really show anything, so there's the argument. This is really a moot point either way. Lynch is not in GB. But Lynch is proven, so there is a decent reason to question why the Packers didn't pursue him.

But, what never gets mentioned and, to me, really solidifies the reason why TT was smart not to get Lynch is that getting Lynch was not the right play for the long-term well-being of the team. Lynch just signed a 4-year, $31M deal, with $17M guaranteed. The Packers have Rodgers, Jennings, Clay, Raji all deserving of new deals in the next few years. If the Packers had to pay Lynch that kind of money, it is doubtful the Pack could also keep those four key players, and potentially others (maybe JMike for instance). And if the Packers just had Lynch for the two-year rental, that was going to cost them the 3rd round pick they used to select Alex Green (Seattle paid a 4th rd., but to better that trade, the Pack would have had to give up the 3rd). If Green can produce as a 3rd-down type back and at the price of a 3rd rd. selection, TT absolutely made the right move in not getting Lynch. Plus, if Starks can stay healthy, I really like what he brings to the team - but that's another thread.

Click to expand...

I tried to make this same point in this thread a couple times. Some fans seem to think you can run a franchise in real life like you would in Madden, but the fact is it just didn't make sense in the long or short term for the team to trade for Lynch.

Keep in mind that most running backs are on their way out around 30. Green has yet to really show anything, so there's the argument. This is really a moot point either way. Lynch is not in GB. But Lynch is proven, so there is a decent reason to question why the Packers didn't pursue him.

Click to expand...

The Packers DID pursue him, we just weren't overly aggressive about it.

As for Green, he was a rookie last season who didn't have an off-season to learn the plays, so expecting him to show much of anything is a bit unrealistic. Unfortunately he got hurt in the middle of the season, which is about when I believe we could have seen him do a bit more. I'm hoping for some improvement this season, though not much since he's still recovering.

Green is going to be fine by training camp. Young guys heal quick. I expect him to be the next Dorsey Levens.

Click to expand...

I'd love this to happen! I'm a big Green fan as well...can't wait to see what he does. I'd love to see us bring back some screen passing like we used to do quite often, he's got the hands, shiftyness and ability to see the field great.

You don't believe that a good runningback would make life easier for Rodgers and the 'O'???

Click to expand...

Of course it would. I don't regret the non-trade though. It is my understanding that we needed to give up a 3rd rounder to get him. Seattle got him for a 4th because their 4th was considered more valuable than ours. And that was correct. We ended up with a better record.

I think a 3rd was too much for Lynch, so I can't fault us for passing.